Collaborative Work Management Technologies and Managerial Intensity in U.S. Corporations: An Examination
Abstract
Do digital technologies reinforce managerial hierarchies or, instead, make them less relevant? We propose that the answer to this question depends on the nature of the technology: specifically, its relative impact on managers’ capacity to supervise and on subordinates’ need for supervision. Applying this framework to collaborative work management (CWM) technologies that facilitate real-time collaboration, communication, and task coordination, we predict that the adoption of such technologies should reduce managerial intensity and increase decentralization in organizations. To test this prediction, we use a difference-in-differences design on a novel data set built from over 26 million job listings (Lightcast) and over 20 million social profiles (Revelio) matched to 3,017 U.S. public firms in Compustat, which we track over the period from 2010 to 2019. We find that over the observation window, CWM technology adopters show a 3% reduction in managerial intensity and a 5%–7% increase in nonmanagerial skills linked to decentralization in their job postings in the years following adoption. The pattern of results is robust to a battery of validations, alternative measures, and specifications, and it strongly supports the idea that these technologies enable collaboration and make organizations less hierarchical along the dimensions that we studied. This paper was accepted by Sameer Srivastava, organizations. Funding: P. Gulati acknowledges financial support from the UCL School of Management, the Ian Potter ‘93 PhD Award at INSEAD, and the Will Mitchell Dissertation Research Grant. P. Puranam acknowledges financial support from the Desmarais Fund at INSEAD for the Organizations & Algorithms Project. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.04127 .
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Certain choices of core technology prefigure certain platform designs, which then make certain business models more competitive and viable.
“certain choices of core technology prefigure certain platform designs (e.g., Gulati et al., 2026), which then make certain business models more competitive than others, and thus more viable.”
From Make Social Media Social Again: How Platform Interoperability Can Fix Social Media and Future‐Proof Democracy (2025) · cites this paper as Gulati et al., 2026
Cites
Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods
Callaway, B., & Sant’Anna, P. H. C. (2021) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001 · Cited by 9,126 · see citing works
How Much Should We Trust Staggered Difference-in-Differences Estimates?
Baker, A. C., Larcker, D. F., & Wang, C. C. Y. (2022) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.01.004 · Cited by 3,149 · see citing works
Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0174 · Cited by 2,732 · see citing works
What's trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature
Roth, J., Sant’Anna, P. H. C., Bilinski, A., & Poe, J. (2023) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.008 · Cited by 2,027 · see citing works
A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends
Rambachan, A., & Roth, J. (2023) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1093/restud/rdad018 · Cited by 1,559 · see citing works
Pretest with Caution: Event-Study Estimates after Testing for Parallel Trends
Roth, J. (2022) · American Economic Review: Insights · doi:10.1257/aeri.20210236 · Cited by 769 · see citing works
Growing out of trouble? Corporate responses to liability risk
Gormley, T. A., & Matsa, D. A. (2011) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhr011 · Cited by 690 · see citing works
Do Recessions Accelerate Routine-Biased Technological Change? Evidence from Vacancy Postings
Hershbein, B., & Kahn, L. B. (2018) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20161570 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vergne, J. P. (2025) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.70048 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gulati, P., Marchetti, A., & Puranam, P.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Singapore Management University (SG)
- INSEAD (SG)
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2026-11
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 9584-9608
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W7139935458
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 9.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Management and Leadership
- Keywords
- organizational hierarchy, decentralization, real-time collaboration, technology adoption, job advertisements, managerial supervision, task coordination, digital technologies in organizations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review